harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Jesus
Unnecessary article This and the other religious articles are really unnecessary. Take the fact that it has nothing to do with the Harry Potter universe coupled with the fact that it's only in the movie because it had to (were they going to break the window just so it wouldn't show?) and I think we have an article that's only there just because it adds on to the wiki's page count. Moreso, who the hell would look up "Jesus Christ" on the Harry Potter wiki? _|"HoboHunter28"|_ 02:16, August 10, 2011 (UTC) :It is a valid appearance nonetheless and, as such, entitled to an article (also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Godric's Hollow was a set, not an actual village, so the stained glass window was made as it was deliberately). -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 02:40, August 10, 2011 (UTC) Birth year The birth year was given as "7-2 BC", but I've read elsewhere that since the Massacre of the Innocents shows that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, and Herod died in 4 BC (yes, he was a different Herod from the one who condemned the adult Jesus), Jesus cannot therefore have been born any later than this. I've made the change. -- RobertATfm (talk) 14:08, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :A recent edit changed the birth-year span to "7-0 BC". Which is nonsense because there is no such year as "0 BC" (nor "0 AD", unless you mean "proleptic 0 AD", which is far more commonly called 1 BC); there was no such number as "zero" in 1 AD, probably still wasn't in 532 AD when the AD epoch was established, and some semi-numerates still claim that "zero is not a number" to this day. (What is it then, a free man?) I have thus corrected the article. — RobertATfm (talk) 13:32, June 17, 2014 (UTC) :Somebody has just altered the possible birth year span to "8–4BC". According to what I've read elsewhere, Jesus' birth could have been as early as 7BC, but is there any reference for the 8BC possibility? — RobertATfm (talk) 22:56, June 22, 2014 (UTC) Inaccuracies The page omitted to say that Jesus is also a prophet of Islam. I've added this. I think the title of this article is wrong; "Christ" is not a name but a title, meaning "the anointed one". OK, so he's commonly called "Jesus Christ" by Christians, but calling him that is tantamount to saying that you believe him to be the Son of God, which many (probably most) people don't. His actual name is "Jesus of Nazareth", and I think this should be the page title. -- RobertATfm (talk) 14:23, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :I realize this was just moved, but I have to disagree. This article is not about the man that probably lived around the early years CE and preached the word of Christianity. This article is about the biblical figure who is the central figure of Christianity and Son of God. That is, after all, who is depicted on the stained glass, not the "real" Jesus who may or may not be divine. For that same reason, I think we should remove the character infobox and any references to things like birth or death dates, and merely mention him as a religious figure (the same should be done to articles like God). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 16:25, July 9, 2012 (UTC) ::I would be all for that - the article should reflect what was portrayed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:01, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :::Somebody removed the reference to Jesus being a prophet of Islam; having checked the Wikipedia article, I've reverted the edit. I can see why some wouldn't like the idea, but the point of articles such as this is to state what is true, not what people would like to be true. I've seen this reference in multiple sources, so it belongs in the article. -- RobertATfm (talk) 03:46, September 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::Very good, the only way can fight wikiality is through conscientiousness. If it's true, and there's no good reason for it not to be there, then it should stay. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:52, September 19, 2012 (UTC) Birth and death details Why do these keep being inserted, then removed, then re-inserted by a different editor (often with the same inaccuracies as before, or with new inaccuracies), removed again, and so on? We should decide once and for all whether these details belong in the article. — RobertATfm (talk) 09:52, June 23, 2014 (UTC) :This information is not relevant to the series, nor is mentioned in it. OUT. MinorStoop 10:03, June 23, 2014 (UTC)